They did have that option, why they decided not to use them is anyone's guess but I fancy the atomic bomb was a more efficient means of killing a lot of human beings in the least amount of time.

~EoR

Yes, but as long as the bomb existed, it was a more efficient option, as you said. But that's by the by - the ultimate question I posed really is, is any weapon of mass destruction more acceptable than any other?

Looking at it from a strategic point of view, was it necessary then to drop two bombs on population centres? Were there no other strategic targets available, or could they not have dropped the first bomb somewhere unpopulated, to send the message that THIS is what would happen if they didn't surrender?

Were the only two options available really only a) kill a quarter of a million people in two bombings or b) invade and suffer and inflict more death and destruction?

The absurdity of the Geneva Convention is that it attempts to enforce a moral war. There is absolutely no such thing. But even under the Geneva Convention, the usage of the bombs were not prohibited, since no valid arms treaty existed at the time.

Considering the massive resistance the Japanese put up on Okinawa and Iwo Jima, it should only be logical for the United States to develop and use an alternative to invading Japan. Operation Downfall was estimated to cost one million Allied lives.

The atom bomb provided that alternative. It posed a massive tactical advantage over the Imperial Japanese Army. Especially since this was a Total War, such a tactical advantage could and should have been used.

In this case, the much dreaded Operation Downfall was avoided at the cost of 140,000 Japanese lives. Presentism tells us that the bombings were immoral. They were. But subjectivity has no place in historical studies.

The United States saved millions of dollars worth of military materiel, as well as the lives of thousands of men. It invested billions into the Manhattan Project. The usage of the bombs were therefore legitimate and justified.

Yes, but as long as the bomb existed, it was a more efficient option, as you said. But that's by the by - the ultimate question I posed really is, is any weapon of mass destruction more acceptable than any other?

It saved many many more lives than it cost.

Quote:

Looking at it from a strategic point of view, was it necessary then to drop two bombs on population centres? Were there no other strategic targets available, or could they not have dropped the first bomb somewhere unpopulated, to send the message that THIS is what would happen if they didn't surrender?

I discussed that option above.

Quote:

Were the only two options available really only a) kill a quarter of a million people in two bombings or b) invade and suffer and inflict more death and destruction?

We could have let a few million Japanese starve to death, along with unknown numbers of people in the occupied territories?

The use of the nuclear bomb, twice, could only be seen as a crime as it went against the most basic of military laws, you do not target women and children. The display of the A-Bombs power was critical to the ending of the war, but then the question is how could it be accomplished without the death of innocent people? A display off the coast or in a harbor may have accomplished the goal.

I'm sorry but the definition of a war crime is quite clear, its an act of war which breaks the internationally agreed rules of war then in place.

It should be considered a joke if you wish to go to war and follow a set of rules that the enemy may or may not follow. And like the below poster has stated:

Quote:

Originally Posted by K-bot

The absurdity of the Geneva Convention is that it attempts to enforce a moral war. There is absolutely no such thing. But even under the Geneva Convention, the usage of the bombs were not prohibited, since no valid arms treaty existed at the time.

Usually people agree ahead of time. Fighting at a particular place, with specific type of weapons. That is a back-alley fight. War. War is unpredictable.

But for the sake of the argument, the defender of the proposed usage of the atomic weapon would position himself in a better position if he was in a "Apologetic, but Necessary" position rather than come off as a "Self-Righteous" one.

Not really concerned about the context of the argument, rather the positioning of the debater. If you are sincere in your apology about the event, but it was necessary, it deflates the argument against it. You had no choice. We could have invaded, but it would have resulted in more casualties and would have taken longer. There is two positives right there. We could have unloaded our bombs on the country since we may not be needing them again, or we could use only two bombs. More likely, more casualties would have resulted in an huge bombing campaign. The infrastructure of Japan would have been in a more severe condition than what the two bombs did. And again, probably more American casualties would have resulted as well as more Japanese civilian casualties.

You could talk all day long about the use of it. The end result is that we had to do it.

The use of the nuclear bomb, twice, could only be seen as a crime as it went against the most basic of military laws, you do not target women and children. The display of the A-Bombs power was critical to the ending of the war, but then the question is how could it be accomplished without the death of innocent people? A display off the coast or in a harbor may have accomplished the goal.

Violation of the law. But again, they violated many civilians of China, the Philippines, etc...

So, you could argue that the violation eliminated the law all together. Since if they are not going to abide by it, we have the right to not follow it. And not following it has so many more advantages than actually following the Laws of War.

It would be a crime to send men to their death knowing there could be an easier way, a faster way, a less bloody way of getting the victory you need.

And Really? A display? A display of force when you only have two of them and that it may take a while to get the next set of bombs out? Whatchagonnado? Call them up collect and say, "Hey, take a look at the ocean."

And you detonate the bomb off the coast, the radiation still kills 20,000 people.